Amidst all the grief that is taking place in the world, added to the experience of football fans who have been locked out of their footballing homes, we witnessed this week the phenomenon of a jet-set that had decided that they were way above the clouds. It was almost as though they had been flying at such an altitude that the minions below mattered little.
Of course, the move towards a breakaway European Super League was so much opposed by those clubs own fans plus the rest of the football world that it was quickly scrapped. Not that I expect the concept to be entirely forgotten, however. I rather suspect that they've gone away to lick their wounds and contemplate a different approach. Interesting, though, that at least there was some fall-out within their hierarchy at Manchester United and Chelsea.
For the time being, at least, we continue 'as before'. It does look, however, as though Boris Johnson wants to bring a review of football management higher up his action list, and if the government comes up with a format akin to that set by the Bundesliga, then that may cause another earthquake reaction from some sectors. We wait and see.
Anyhow, the fact of the sheer cheek that south-eastern and north-western clubs should even for one moment think they're above the rest does make me think about how we've arrived at this point. So I decided to look into this matter a bit more, and as a starting point, I soon found - hidden deep in my football archive - a statement made by a respected fellow Villa blogger many moons ago, about Arsenal, who by fortune only found themselves in the top tier in 1919, and (give them credit) have never since been relegated from that station.
Anyhow that blogger went on, comparing the Villa's history with Arsenal (one of the proposed 'big-6' English breakaway teams) in recent decades:
The most recurring question is how two clubs with such similar sized grounds (around 40k [this was in 2003]) could have so very different amounts of financial clout? While Villa sold, they seemed to buy. While one club built on its strength; Villa's success was always followed by desperate decline. It's a mystery.
Well, I'm not so sure it is quite such a mystery. It may be a coincidence, but the entertainment industry, in general, started to mushroom in the early 1920s, and where was Arsenal situated? In the heart of all that in the comparatively well-heeled north London, not that far from the then great major British film studios and the West End. As the 1920s progressed, Arsenal attracted stars of stage and screen to its sanctuary and thereby its status grew, while Villa - resident in an industrial heartland - gained very little of that kind of status even though it had more than helped to lay the foundations of football's attraction in the pre-WW1 years.
Another near-breakaway club, Spurs, of course, being close to Arsenal, also benefitted from the razzamatazz acclaim, though their rise to great fame came much later, but - despite some quarters insisting otherwise - still does not have a history that is better than the Villa's.
Chelsea's big rise in status only came with the development of the Premier League and in particular through the Russian spendthrift, though it is true to say that from the beginning of their history (1905) they attracted a very big following in London, and the 1960s saw Chelsea dazzle for a time.
So that's the south-east. How about the north-west? Again, none of Liverpool, Man U, and certainly not Man C, were much taken notice of until after WW2. It was the great disaster of the 1958 Munich air-crash that decimated the Busby Babes that pulled at the nation's heartstrings, and rightly so.
It could be said that the abolition of the maximum footballers' wage in 1961, plus the strident managership of (firstly) Matt Busby at Manchester United, then Bill Shankley at Liverpool, brought about the polarisation towards the north-west by the 1960s, with London (mainly Arsenal and Spurs) at that time in tandem. Villa, as with the industrial status of Birmingham, dropped from view except as being regarded like an elderly wise gentleman getting towards the end of his days.
A popular view of the English economy is that it's always been seated in London, with Manchester gathering status since (as it happens) the start of the Premier League, again to the detriment of Birmingham. Even in 1981, when the Villa was apparently starting an era of re-joining the football elite, a severe economic downturn affected the West Midlands and, therefore, football attendances at Villa Park (Villa's primary source of income then) - despite Villa's European success at that time.
The key matter is, however, that since 1992 (the foundation of the Premier League, now 29 years old) only the two Manchester clubs, Arsenal and Chelsea, with Liverpool hovering, have dominated English football in terms of trophies and have thus amassed further great wealth, adding to the financial support of their owners.
Added to all that has been the bias of the national media since WW2, becoming particularly London-focused as time passed. How players of the ilk of Brian Little and Gordon Cowans could get so little international recognition is largely a reflection, I suggest, of that situation.
So that's a broad portrait as to why Villa have not been considered (by the media) as being one of the 'big' clubs anymore, despite the fact that much of Villa's history indicates otherwise. I have not taken into account the Doug Ellis period - particular 1992-2006 - of which there is a good deal of probably valid conjecture that he held Villa back by his financial policies, but that is only part of the story.
As to today? It would be easy to think that nothing much has changed going by the visit of Manchester City this week. Despite a so early Villa goal taken with great alacrity, the understrength Villa had no answer to the precise football that is City, though they also were understrength. Villa had a chance to get back into the game after Stones' blood-to-the-head challenge on poor Ramsey (the second, but much worse, assault on his body), but that advantage lasted 13 minutes playing time. Villa instead decided to self-destruct with Cash's impetuous tackles.
But the sheer lack of confidence in the Villa ranks of being able to pass to claret shirts was a worry throughout the match. Meanwhile, as the game wore on, the City players seemed to regard the Villa players as mere boys, to bypass at their leisure. At least the score was 2-1 and not 6-1 (as last season).
Well, Davis got 45 minutes but gained virtually no support. Just where was Villa's midfield? And what has happened to Barkley? One corner-kick (Villa's only one) was his only effective contribution, which Davis met with alacrity and placed into the goalmouth, only to find the other clarets asleep.
The positive matter that the Villans have to hang onto is that this surely continues to be an evolutionary phase, but saying that makes me wince, as Lerner's running down of the club from 2010 (almost as a mirror of Ellis) effectively caused a long period of re-establishment. It may be two or three years yet before real fruit emerges from this re-planted oak tree.
Is Villa a 'big club'? Of course. But it's about time the world could see more proof of that. I do believe, though, that Aston Villa's latest owners can and will do much - if Boris, and the world's situation, will allow them to.
UTV!
No comments:
Post a Comment